🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 2:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:37 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 12:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > sci.physics:
>
> > > > Porat 2 : is the speed of light in vacum constant ??
> > > > hanson : It depends.
>
> > > it depends on   nothing in vacum
>
> > Porat, you often claim that the photon is a particle with a mass. Then
> > its speed must depend on the speed of the light source mustn't it:
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> > "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> > p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
> > principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
> > be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
> > a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
> > had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
> > one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
>
> thank you Pentco for your interesting resond
> but please note:
>
> i am not all along with Einstein even with SR!!
>
> i am very sepective
> if einstein ever said that th e   photon has no mass
> i am not with that !!
> i even proved it that the photon has mass
> and it is hidden in the h (Planck) factor
> there fore i came all  by myself it seems orriginally
> that the photon is an EXCEPTION CASE   **
> and if an exception  case
> *it can have mass AND move by c *!!
> does it speak to you ??
> and if an exception case
> it can have mass and move at c  IN VACUUM
> (the speller told me to write it with 2 u  .. strange to me ..??)
>
> so as an exception it might as well for some unknown reason
> not be dependant on the speed of its source ??
> i dont bet my head on it
> i just take it as an experimental fact
> if** experiments** will prove others i will change my mind
> now
> it is c;ear to me that we must base our velocity analysis
> on   some constant movement
> or else i dint see  how we can handle it !!
> just to remind you
> my claim is as well that Time
> is nothing but **motion comparison to some
> motion reference **
> and if we have not a single motion reference
> we are out of any bussinnes with it
> if light is amotion reference for movement
> than we can refere it to that
> and that ia actually what we are doing in SR
> ans you cant deny a lot of experimenal dtata
> that suppory  SR
> BTW
> my personal beleife is that
> **motion does not change masses or object dismstions
> it is only changing
> the measuring units of time and  length !!
> (if the** measurment unit** are  changed due to motion
>  it seems only that the
> real objects themselves  were changed ( ie relatively !!)
>
> how do you like that idea ??
> -------------------
>
> > train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> > speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> > emitting it.
>
> as i sayd   th ephoton is an exception case
> ----------
>  And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
>
> > that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> > Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> > result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> > contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> > we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> > result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> > ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
>
> he didnt think about    the photon as an exception case ....(:-)
> and that is as well why he thought that  it cannot move at c
> and have mass .
> ------
>
> > or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether
>
> i dont think we need aether
> ---------
>
> > was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
> > Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
> > one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
> > his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
> > prove to be superfluous."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
>
> and please note
> that i think
> GR as nonsense !!!!!!!
>
> so i am very selective !!!
> and  surely not biased nationally or   race whise
> that should be rejected completely from
> scientific discussions    !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------

and in addition to he above post
i said that or unknown reason    the photon is a special case
and therefore for unknown reason
its velocity    i s   not dependent on the movement
of its source  :
and i thought right after that about some possibility :

we know for   instance that black    holes
radiate their powerful photons
**perpendicular**  to the plan of their  inner movement
so
their radial   (discal )    movement is not relevant
as velocity of source !!

**and may be that is the case for all fast moving sources
of light ???**

how about that as a** first shot**    idea ???

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------